alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 23, 2019 *

Decided October 24, 2019

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 19-1138

DAVID DIXON, Plaintiff-Appellant ,

v

.
FALEN RICK, et al. , Defendants-Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 18 C 7897

Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, Chief Judge

.

O R D E R
David Dixon did not make child support payments, and Illinois state officials seized funds from his bank account to sa tisfy the debt. Dixon then sued the state officials and his bank in federal court. He requested that the court dismiss the child support claim against him, asserting that the seizure violated his rights to due process and equal protection under th e Fourteenth Amendment and his right to be free from involuntary servitude under the Thirteen th Amendment. Although Dixon invoked

* We have agreed to decide the case wi thout oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and le gal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(C). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp . P. 32.1No. 19-1138 Page 2

various federal claims, the district court concluded that, essentially, the complaint challenged state-court proceedings to es tablish and enforce Dixon’s child support obligation. As a result, the court dismissed th e case for lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents federal di strict courts from setting aside state-court judgments. See Gilbert v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ. , 591 F.3d 896, 900 (7th Cir. 2010).
On appeal, Dixon repeats the same legal theories he advanced in the district court but fails to point to any basis for the district court’s jurisdiction over his claims. His failure to develop an argument challeng ing the district court’s jurisdictional determination waives his only possible av enue for appellate relief, and we could dismiss his brief on that basis. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 28(a)(8); Griffin v. TeamCare , 909 F.3d 842, 846 (7th Cir. 2018). In any event, we agree that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine—not to mention the domestic relations ex ception to federal jurisdiction, see Ankenbrandt v. Richards , 504 U.S. 689, 693–95, 716 (1992)—prevented the district court from reviewing the state-court order, see Gilbert , 591 F.3d at 900.

AFFIRMED
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 5/27/15 8:20 AM

Received: May 18, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8ixb-hf0v

Comments Due: July 06, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0284

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: Mark Caragio

Address: 

1616 N Watson Pl

Eagle, ID, 836167016

Email: inbox1@caragio.org

Phone: 208-939-2729

General Comment

I absolutely support enactment of this rule.

The idea that you can seek expert advice for something so important as long term financial 

well-being, only to be directed to inferior, often greatly damaging options, is incomprehensible 

to me.

While one's physical health is of greater importance, I liken the current environment of not 

requiring fiduciary responsibility for retirement plan administrators, to that of allowing the sale 

of snake oil. Only in the case of snake oil, it isn't actually damaging, it just doesn't solve your 

problem. A 401k administrator, on the other hand, who gets paid some percentage up front, 

receives continued payments via revenue sharing, and on top of that is recommending funds 

with inferior performance history, is actually CAUSING damage.

This needs to stop now!

Thank you for addressing this problem.

Page 1 of 1

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481ae7437&format=xml&show... 5/27/2015
###### Editorial Note on Part 385

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 385 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

#### § 385.903 Definitions.

As used in this subpart:

*Agency Official* means the FMCSA employee with delegated authority under this subpart.

*Controlling Influence* means having or exercising authority, whether by act or omission, to direct some or all of a motor carrier's operational policy and/or safety management controls.

*Officer* means an owner, director, chief executive officer, chief operating officer, chief financial officer, safety director, vehicle maintenance supervisor, and driver supervisor of a motor carrier, regardless of the title attached to those functions, and any person, however designated, exercising controlling influence over the operations of a motor carrier.

*Registration* means the registration required under 49 U.S.C. 13902, 49 CFR part 365, and 49 CFR part 368.

[79 FR 3537, Jan. 22, 2014, as amended at 86 FR 57070, Oct. 14, 2021]
§ 37.33 Airport transportation systems. ( a ) Transportation systems operated by public airport operators, which provide designated public transportation and connect parking lots and terminals or provide transportation among terminals, are subject to the requirements of this part for fixed route or demand responsive systems, as applicable, operated by public entities. Public airports which operate fixed route transportation systems are subject to the requirements of this part for commuter bus service operated by public entities. The provision by an airport of additional accommodations (e.g., parking spaces in a close-in lot) is not a substitute for meeting the requirements of this part.
( b ) Fixed-route transportation systems operated by public airport operators between the airport and a limited number of destinations in the area it serves are subject to the provisions of this part for commuter bus systems operated by public entities.
( c ) Private jitney or shuttle services that provide transportation between an airport and destinations in the area it serves in a route-deviation or other variable mode are subject to the requirements of this part for private entities primarily engaged in the business of transporting people which provide demand responsive service. They may meet equivalency requirements by such means as sharing or pooling accessible vehicles among operators, in a way that ensures the provision of equivalent service.
<TABLE> 
EXHIBIT 11 -- STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS 
SYSTEMS & COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES 
<CAPTION> 

                                             Three months ended                       Nine months ended 
                                        June 30, 1997    June 30, 1996          June 30, 1997    June 30, 1996 

PRIMARY 
<S>                                      <C>              <C>                    <C>              <C> 
Average shares outstanding                15,539,888       14,066,445             14,552,365       14,061,623 

Net effect of dilutive stock options-- 
   based on the treasury stock method 
   using average market price              1,004,451          978,503                718,348        1,034,288 
                                         -----------      -----------            -----------      ----------- 

Total                                     16,544,339       15,044,948             15,270,713       15,095,911 
                                         ===========      ===========            ===========      =========== 


Net income                               $ 6,405,000      $ 2,912,000            $14,515,000      $ 5,941,000 
                                         ===========      ===========            ===========      =========== 
 
Net income per share                           $0.39            $0.19                  $0.95            $0.39 
                                               =====            =====                  =====            ===== 
 

FULLY DILUTED 
Average shares outstanding                15,539,888       14,066,445             14,552,365       14,061,623 

Net effect of dilutive stock options-- 
   based on the treasury stock method 
   using the end of period market price, 
   if higher than average market price     1,209,024          978,503              1,209,024        1,034,288 
 
Assumed conversion of 6 1/4% 
   convertible subordinated debentures       606,556        2,085,000              1,531,945                0 
                                         -----------      -----------            -----------      ----------- 

Total                                     17,355,468       17,129,948             17,293,334       15,095,911 
                                         ===========      ===========            ===========      =========== 

 
Net Income                               $ 6,405,000      $ 2,912,000            $14,515,000      $ 5,941,000 

Add 6 1/4 % convertible subordinated 
   debenture interest, net of 
   income tax effect                               0          300,000                521,000                0 

Net income, as adjusted                  $ 6,405,000      $ 3,212,000            $15,036,000      $ 5,941,000 
                                         ===========      ===========            ===========      =========== 

Net income per share                           $0.37            $0.19                  $0.87            $0.39 
                                               =====            =====                  =====            ===== 
</TABLE>
Back to 10Q

Exhibit 32.1

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirement of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/Paul B. Domorski                                            |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Paul B. Domorski                                               |
| Chairman of the Board, President & Chief Executive Officer |
| May 16, 2011                                                   |
|                                                           |
| /s/Ronald J. Casciano                                          |
| Ronald J. Casciano                                             |
| Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer,            |
| and Chief Accounting Officer                                   |
| May 16, 2011                                                   |
|                                                           |
#### Ellen Urquhart, *Appellant, v.*The City of Ogdensburg, *Respond*ent.—

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. • Opinion by

Bocees, J.
Nov. 24: Military Airstrikes Continue Against ISIL in Syria and Iraq
 By U.S. Central Command News Release
  November 24, 2014 Release #20141117FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE **TAMPA, Fla., Nov. 24, 2014 —** U.S. and partner nation military forces continued to attack ISIL terrorists in Syria Nov. 21-24 using fighter and bomber aircraft to conduct nine airstrikes. Separately, U.S. and partner nation military forces conducted fifteen airstrikes in Iraq Nov. 21-24 using fighter, attack, bomber and remotely-piloted aircraft against ISIL terrorists. In Syria, seven airstrikes near Kobani destroyed three ISIL fighting positions and two ISIL staging areas, damaged another ISIL staging area and suppressed four ISIL fighting positions. Near Ar Raqqah, two airstrikes struck an ISIL headquarters building. In Iraq, five airstrikes near Mosul destroyed an ISIL checkpoint, three ISIL HMMWVs, a large ISIL unit, two tactical ISIL units and a heavy weapon. Near al-Asad, two airstrikes destroyed a mortar position, a ISIL artillery piece, an ISIL vehicle and a tactical ISIL unit and damaged an ISIL-occupied building and an ISIL vehicle. Near Baghdad, two airstrikes destroyed an ISIL-occupied building, three ISIL vehicles, an ISIL HMMWV and two tactical ISIL units, one of which was emplacing IEDs. Near Ramadi, two airstrikes destroyed two ISIL vehicles. Near Tal Afar, two airstrikes suppressed a mortar position. Near Fallujah, an airstrike struck an ISIL obstruction near Fallujah Dam. Near Hit, an airstrike destroyed an ISIL vehicle. All aircraft returned to base safely. Airstrike assessments are based on initial reports. The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the terrorist group ISIL and the threat they pose to Iraq, the region and the wider international community. The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to project power and conduct operations. Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq include the U.S., Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Coalition Nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the U.S., Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.
[No. 1199.]

#### Fuqua v. The People.

Cbiminal Law — Appeal Ebom Justice of the Peace to County Coubt — Authobity to Entbb Judgment.

In an appeal from a conviction in a criminal case before a justice of the peace to the county court, the only authority the county court has to render judgment against the defendant and the surety is contained in sec. 2048, Gen. Stats. (Mills’ Ann. Stats, sec. 2772) and is limited to the fine assessed by the jury and the costs. If no fine is assessed by the jury there is no authority for the rendition of judgment by the court.

*Error to the County Court of La Plata County.*

Messrs. Ritter & Russell, for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. B. L. Carr, Attorney General, and. Mr. Calvin E. Reed, for defendant in error.

Thomson, P. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Rosa May Fuqua, one of the plaintiffs in error, was arrested and tried for the larceny of $18.00 before a justice of the peace, who found her guilty, assessed a fine against her and rendered judgment for the amount of the fine and costs. From this judgment, she appealed to the county court. Phillip Gerow, the other plaintiff in error, was surety on the appeal bond. In that court she was tried by a jury, who, after hearing the evidence and being instructed by the court, returned the following verdict: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty in the manner and form as charged in the complaint, and find the value of the property stolen at $18.00.” Upon this verdict the court assessed a fine against her of $25.00, and rendered judgment for that amount and $121.15, taxed as costs, against the defendant and the surety on the appeal bond. From that judgment error has been prosecuted to this court.

*63The only question we care to consider is whether the court had any authority to render judgment on the verdict. Section 2047 of the General Statutes provides for appeals by persons convicted of criminal offenses before justices, to the county court. Section 2048 is as follows: “ If the defendant shall be found guilty in the county court, judgment shall be rendered against both principal and security in the appeal bond for the amount of the fine assessed by the jury in said court, and all costs that may have accrued.” In a criminal case brought into the county court by appeal from a justice of the peace, the only authority of the court to render judgment in the case against the defendant and the surety on the appeal bond, is contained in the latter section; and the judgment authorized is limited by the terms of the section to the fine assessed by the jury, and the costs. Without the assessment of the fine by the jury, there is no authority for the rendition of the judgment by the court. As the jury assessed no fine in this case, the judgment was unwarranted, and must be reversed.

*Reversed.*
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-1090 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-SW-017-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

Yes Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
```

[Federal Register: November 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 226)]
[Notices]               
[Page 71790-71791]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24no10-155]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

 
Second Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 224: Airport Security 
Access Control Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 224 meeting: Airport Security 
Access Control Systems (Update to DO-230B).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 224: Airport Security Access Control 
Systems.

DATES: The meeting will be held December 9, 2010, from 10 a.m. to 5 
p.m..

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 805, MacIntosh--NBAA Room and Hilton--ATA Room, Washington DC, 
20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW. 
Suite 805, Washington, DC, 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice 
is hereby given for a Special Committee 224: Airport Security Access 
Control Systems (Update to DO-230B):

Agenda

December 9, 2010

 Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
 Review/Approve Summary--First Meeting
 Agenda Overview
 Report on Security Construction Guidelines Meeting
 Workgroup Reports
 Credentials PACS Interoperability
 Biometrics Interoperability
 Migration Communications
 Other Input From Members
 Work Objectives for Next Plenary
 Other Business
 Establish Agenda for Next Meeting
 Date and Place of Next Meeting

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

[[Page 71791]]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 17, 2010.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2010-29544 Filed 11-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
EXHIBIT 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-140870on Form S-3 and Registration Statements No. 333-129538 and 333-84447 on Form S-8 ofour report dated February 22, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financialstatement schedules of CNA Financial Corporation and subsidiaries (the “Company”), and theeffectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this AnnualReport on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007 (which report expresses anunqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph concerning a change in method ofaccounting for investments in life settlement contracts in 2007 and defined benefit pension andother postretirement plans in 2006).DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPChicago, Illinois
1210-AB32-2-1244.html[7/24/2015 9:24:59 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvt-if93

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1739

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Irma Ashe

Address:

2035 E Turin Ave

Anaheim, CA, 92806

Email: materdea@hotmail.com

General Comment

Please stay out of my business and my money. I will take care of my own finances I do not need nor want your

 thoughts, comment or control over my money.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 32

Designating majority membership on certain standing committees of the

House.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 8, 2001

Mr. KIRK submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed

to

RESOLUTION

Designating majority membership on certain standing

committees of the House.

1 Resolved, That the following named Members be and

2 are hereby, elected to the following standing committees

3 of the House of Representatives:

4 COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET: Mr. Kirk.

5 COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE: Mr. Bass

6 to rank after Mr. Radanovich.

7 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM: Mr. Weldon

8 of Florida; Mr. Cannon; Mr. Putnam; Mr. Otter, and Mr.

9 Schrock.
2

HRES 32 ATH

1 COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES: Mr. Flake and Mr.

2 Rehberg.

3 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE: Mr. Shays to rank after

4 Mrs. Morella.

5 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRA6 STRUCTURE: Mr. Pombo and Mr. Hayes to rank after Mr.

7 Isakson.

8 COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS: Mr. Brown of

9 South Carolina.

Æ